Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gregory]

People are beginning to comment that President Wilson is not very influential.

[Johann]

People are beginning to comment that President Wilson is not very influential.

What will be his next  move, if any?

[Johann]

People are beginning to comment that President Wilson is not very influential.

What will be his next  move, if any?

His next  move should be to seek to unite the church. Would it be easier for someone else to do that now?

[Gregory]

Personally, I am comming to the opinon that if female ordination becomes a reality, President Wilson may be seen in retrospect as contributing more to bring it about than any other person could have done.

If so, he may become known as an oxymoron personified.

[Gregory]

Oxymoron personified:

President Wilson:
1)  Is commonly understood as personally being against female ordination. 
2) Believes in rule by committee and not by Presidential Edict.
3)  Has expressed his leadership style in the replacement of the ADRA Director by a committee.

This has caused people to believe that the time has come to act immediately on the issue of female ordination before any committees have been formed and made a decision.

Just a personal opinon as to what it going on.

[Johann]

Here is the story:

http://www.columbiaunion.org/article/1093/news/2012-news-archives/july-29-2012-columbia-union-constituents-overwhelmingly-affirm-women-pastors-through-ordination#.UBYU36CoqSp


It includes Ted Wilson's appeal.

[Murcielago]

Here is the story:

http://www.columbiaunion.org/article/1093/news/2012-news-archives/july-29-2012-columbia-union-constituents-overwhelmingly-affirm-women-pastors-through-ordination#.UBYU36CoqSp


It includes Ted Wilson's appeal.

I read this article many times. It appears that the fundamental argument against the motion was "unity." I didn't see a biblical argument, or one based on EGW. I don't see where Wilson et al quoted or used scripture or EGW to make an argument against equality of the sexes in ordination. In fact, I don't see where they made any argument against it at all. They simply argued for unity. Interesting. Why is this?

[Johann]

Here is the story:

http://www.columbiaunion.org/article/1093/news/2012-news-archives/july-29-2012-columbia-union-constituents-overwhelmingly-affirm-women-pastors-through-ordination#.UBYU36CoqSp


It includes Ted Wilson's appeal.

I read this article many times. It appears that the fundamental argument against the motion was "unity." I didn't see a biblical argument, or one based on EGW. I don't see where Wilson et al quoted or used scripture or EGW to make an argument against equality of the sexes in ordination. In fact, I don't see where they made any argument against it at all. They simply argued for unity. Interesting. Why is this?

Yes, "unity" is their only argument, because there is no other. It is interesting that "unity" also seems to be the only argument, or slogan, all the other Christian Churches use for sticking together under one spiritual world leader. 

The Columbia Union Conference responded immediately to the message from Ted Wilson about waiting until all had had the opportunity to come to a conclusion by 2014. The CUC remarked in their reply how strange it was that the General Conference had not used a single reference to Scripture nor the Spirit of Prophecy in the appeal they sent to churches in the whole world.

[Bob Pickle]

There are two different and distinct issues. One is women's ordination. The other is the authority of a GC Session. On the former issue you couldn't have a letter written by all of the division presidents, but on the latter issue you could.

So what Scripture and SoP references could you have in support of the latter issue? Acts 15 and Ellen White's comments about the decision of the council of Acts 15. And then there is 9T 260-261.

But the rebels in the Columbia Union, would any of these passages have dissuaded them in their determination to thumb their noses at the decisions of the representatives of the world church?

[Gregory]

Bob is correct.  There are two issues.

However, the authority of the General Conference is not as simple as Bob would make it.  The General Conference operates under a Constitution which can only be changed by the GC in session.  IOW, that Constitution was voted back in time by the GC in session.

Lower organizations operate under their own Constitutions.  These are required to conform to "model constitutions" which are essentially a template and are authorized by the GC voting in session.

The typical Union Constitution give the Union the authority to decide who is ordained and who is not.  IOW, constitutionally the authority to ordain rests with the Unions and not the General Conference in session.

[Gregory]

The fundamental issue at stake here is not female ordination.  It is the role that women may play in spiritual nurture.  IOW, should females have spiritual authority over males?  That is the fundamental  issue.

If we say that females should not have spiritual authority over males, that position affects our view of EGW.  Whatever our  position is, that position would logically apply to EGW.

I support EGW in the role that she played in the development of the SDA Church.  I support females in leadership in spiritual nuture, as God has demonstrated many times.  I support  female ordination.

[Bob Pickle]

Bob is correct.  There are two issues.

However, the authority of the General Conference is not as simple as Bob would make it.  The General Conference operates under a Constitution which can only be changed by the GC in session.  IOW, that Constitution was voted back in time by the GC in session.

Lower organizations operate under their own Constitutions.  These are required to conform to "model constitutions" which are essentially a template and are authorized by the GC voting in session.

The typical Union Constitution give the Union the authority to decide who is ordained and who is not.  IOW, constitutionally the authority to ordain rests with the Unions and not the General Conference in session.

It seems like your explanation does not really address the point. One what constitutional or legal basis can a conference or union vote to do something diametrically opposed to a GC Session vote, in light of GC & NAD Working Policy, Acts 15, and 9T 260-261? What is the constitutional or legal basis for the present rebellion?

[Dedication]

My opinion --
A lot of people don't see it so much as opposing the General Conference, they tend to see the Adventist Church as an American Institution being told by third world countries (where women are regarded as lessor creatures) what they can and can't do.
Adventism, even though the General Conference office is still in America, now has it's greatest membership outside of America, so they now have a larger vote.

Of course there are people in America who are against women ordination as well, so it isn't a clear cut thing here, but the battle of cultures is playing its role here.

[Artiste]

Kevin Paulson used an interesting term--"act of ecclesiastical sedition" in reference to the CUC vote.

[Bob Pickle]

My opinion --
A lot of people don't see it so much as opposing the General Conference, they tend to see the Adventist Church as an American Institution being told by third world countries (where women are regarded as lessor creatures) what they can and can't do.
Adventism, even though the General Conference office is still in America, now has it's greatest membership outside of America, so they now have a larger vote.

Of course there are people in America who are against women ordination as well, so it isn't a clear cut thing here, but the battle of cultures is playing its role here.

I'm not sure it really is a battle of cultures. If our members in other countries base their opposition on Scripture rather than culture, it really isn't a battle of cultures.